Trending Now

All Articles

3458 Articles
Commercial Deals

Litigation Funding May See Boost from Rise in Commercial Cases

After a COVID-caused dearth of commercial cases, it’s beginning to look like disputes are on the rise. During a pandemic, it makes sense for companies to forego risky litigation in favor of conserving resources. In-house legal departments, however, are already reporting an increase in commercial cases that are only expected to grow. Law 360 details that a rise in commercial litigation will likely also lead to increased use of third-party litigation funding. As the Litigation Finance industry grows in maturity, and more legal firms have positive experiences with funders—applications for legal funding will only increase. Companies would do well to implement claims recovery strategies and vet existing claims to determine which should be pursued. A recent survey by Ernst & Young shows that 63% of lawyers (external and in-house counsel) reported eschewing litigation during the pandemic. A stunning 81% of respondents said they negotiated contracts to stay out of court, while 1/3 of respondents reported deferring or ignoring a valid legal claim due to a desire to reduce costs. These are situations where litigation funding can be especially helpful. More than half of companies surveyed say they’re expecting an increase in the volume of claims, while 66% of external legal counsel are in agreement. At least 1/3 of counsel surveyed report already seeing an increase in litigation. Stephen McBrady, partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, explains that the commercial litigation space is already seeing more recovery-oriented action. It is troubling though, that despite the expected increase in litigation, attorneys are not seeing an uptick in resources. In fact, half of lawyers surveyed by Burford Capital say they expect legal budgets to be reduced. In-house lawyers, therefore, should expect to do more work with fewer resources and greater time constraints. With that in mind, it makes sense to look to litigation funding as a way to continue pursuing litigation without taking away from the operating budget.
Commercial Deals

LegalPay Partners with Jumbo Finance

FinTech startup LegalPay has recently formed a partnership with non-banking financial company, Jumbo Finance. The Delhi-based start-up focuses on litigation funding for insolvencies. Business Today explains that the stressed asset market in India has an estimated TAM of about $150 billion, and will almost certainly see an uptick in deals in the near future. According to the Reserve Bank of India, the gross non-performing asset ratio could increase from 7.48% (March 2021) to 9.8-11.22% by March of this year. LegalPay founder and CEO Kundan Shahi claims that his company is aggressively capturing the insolvency market.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Can a Defunct Company Sue? Courts Respond with a Resounding “Maybe”

Pursuant to a case involving bid-rigging from some of the world’s largest banks in 2013, a 2019 dismissal affirmed a longstanding precedent in the United States: Dead people can’t sue. Generally speaking, this applies to defunct companies as well. In order to initiate a lawsuit, the person or entity must exist. Chief Executive details that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversed that decision. It reasoned last March that it doesn’t matter if the plaintiffs died before they filed suit—so long as someone still living had a viable stake in the case. This set off the US Chamber of Commerce, among others, which warned courts that this decision could lead to third-party legal funders anonymously launching cases simply for profit. The Chamber of Commerce went so far as to ask SCOTUS to overturn the reversal. It claims that the Constitution limits federal court involvement to cases that revolve around “real controversy” that have a tangible impact on “real persons.” It went on to suggest that the ruling would empower class-action lawyers, funders, or hedge funds to act unscrupulously. While that’s certainly possible—all industries have bad actors—is that really a reason to limit which cases can be pursued?
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Recovering TPF Costs in Arbitrations: The Current Approach

Five years ago, Essar vs Norscot brought about a landmark decision. The English High Court upheld a ruling requiring that the defendant cover the claimant’s costs associated with legal funding in the arbitration. Now it appears that arbitral tribunals are increasingly likely to award costs associated with procuring third-party legal funding. Omni Bridgeway explains that third-party funding costs may refer to the funder’s success fee, which is one of many payouts funders receive when a claim is successful. Plus, the costs can include reimbursing funders for costs paid over the course of the arbitration itself. In Essar, courts cited three reasons for awarding WPF costs:
  • The respondent engaged in “reprehensible conduct” well beyond typical breach of contract—thus spurring the arbitration.
  • The claimant’s lack of resources
  • The respondent’s actions, intended to take advantage of the claimant’s lack of financial resources.
Recovery of TPF costs is now a common part of arbitrations in multiple jurisdictions. A recent tribunal decision in Singapore held that tribunals do have the authority to award recovery of claimant legal costs—including those associated with third-party legal funding. What changes have been spurred by the Essar ruling? First, disclosure of funding agreements early on in the arbitration process is preferred. Some jurisdictions, Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, now require this. Next, some tribunals have signaled a willingness to include TPF costs of ATE (after the event) insurance premiums. One tribunal determined recently that a claimant’s ATE premium was a necessary part of their TPF costs—and could be recovered just as any other TPF costs. Finally, tribunals are evaluating the “reasonableness” of TPF costs sought, as they determine whether to award costs. In Essar, the TPF costs were about three times the legal and arbitration costs. Clearly, tribunals are responding to the necessity of third-party funding in arbitrations, and are ruling accordingly.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

 New ATE Premium Privacy Precedent 

Precedent has been set by Kent v. Apple. on the merits of ATE premium privacy. The court ruled that Apple is not privy to ATE policy details, in that it may afford the company an unfair advantage to dispute the claim.  Mishcon.com further dissects the relevance to ATE Premium disclosure in a new profile on courtroom strategic sensitivity. Competition Appeal Tribunal rules normally make determinations to authorize funding agreement details. In most cases, the details of the funding agreements are made available to all parties involved, under scope of common disclosure.   However, in this instance, Kent redacted her funding budget’s ATE premium details. Apple petitioned the court with objection to the redactions. As the tribunal weighed the argument, it debated if the information Apple sought was necessary. In this instance, the court found that the ATE premium details were not privileged, but were strategically relevant to the case and henceforth not privy to Apple under competitive fairness.   The landmark decision is welcomed as fundamental precedent in litigation finance proceedings. Similarly, the notion of “strategic sensitivity” may hail additional rulings in the future.
Commercial Fundraising

Jack Dorsey to Launch Bitcoin Defense Fund 

Jack Dorsey, founder and CEO of Block, Inc. (formerly, Square) announced plans to launch a Bitcoin legal defense fund. The proceeds from the fund will be used to support legal actions for open source developers in the cryptocurrency and blockchain communities.  ZDNet.com explains that the Bitcoin community is facing various challenges via litigation. Dorsey’s new Bitcoin Defense fund would help ease pressures on open-source developers as they defend and/or pursue various cryptocurrency and blockchain litigation instances. Dorsey is labeling the fund as a coordinated and formalized facility for the cause.  The fund aims to help pay for developer legal bills in retaining quality attorneys. Dorsey alludes to advantages from litigation funding scenarios in developing strategies to protect cryptocurrency and blockchain developers from legal attacks. Furthermore, Dorsey is positioning the fund to be a free and open option for developers to engage, if they wish.   The fund will look to engage volunteer and part time legal leadership to operate. Dorsey plans to share more about the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund’s future in the coming weeks and months.
Commercial Deals

 AxiaFunder Closes First Limited Partnership 

AxiaFunder, the UK-based crowdfunding platform for litigation finance, announced a closing of its first $300,000 limited partnership case. AxiaFunder plans to have the details live on its platform over the next few weeks.  P2Pfinance.co.uk reports that AxiFunder’s first case is said to be a shareholder dispute over unfair prejudice. Forecasted returns on the dispute are expected to be 3.7 times that of the funded investment.  Last month, AxiaFunder revealed its plan for a limited partnership organization to support crowdfunding in litigation finance. According to AxiaFunder, the limited partnership design is extremely tax efficient and will boost litigation investors' overall returns.  
Commercial Deals

$58M+ Owed to Litigation Finance Backer 

New allegations are emerging that Affiniti Finance lent thousands of law firms millions of dollars, only to leave its financier empty handed. Now in administration, Affiniti’s creditors have concluded the firm cannot keep it’s doors open while operating an orderly run off.  LelgalFutures.co.uk reports that Affiniti engaged Consumer Credit Act contracts to disburse monies associated with personal injury and claims related to mis-selling. Now, many of the aforementioned agreements are under investigation by auditors. Apparently, a series of events transpired resulting in Affiniti defaulting on its obligations to longtime financier, Fortress Capital. Affiniti’s dependency on Fortress was crucial, so when the hedge fund decided to cease funding, Affinity lost its ability to operate. Now auditors are left to sift through Affinity's loan book to understand the firm’s financial position.  As recently as 2020, Affiniti announced plans to raise a $500M capital raise with plans to invest in as many as 5,000 new claims. However, it seems those plans were a pipe dream, at best.
Commercial Legal Innovation

A Stock Market for Litigation Finance 

A litigation finance stock market? That is what one new New York startup called Ryval is looking to launch. The idea is to let everyday citizens bet on litigation claims.  Faisal.nyc reports that Ryval plans to issue tokens so that users can invest in individual litigation claims, much like the stock market. The platform is being depicted as similar to GoFundMe and other crowdfunding platforms. The idea is that empowering justice through tokenization is a worthwhile cause.  What is interesting about Ryval is the proposal that tokens may be bought and sold during a litigation lifecycle. No word on how and if the litigation tokens will increase or decrease in price during the span of a successful or unsuccessful litigation.  With innovation, naturally comes criticism. The notion that Ryval is going to “democratize the court system” is irking some. Some are labeling Ryval as a betting market, rather than a justice facilitator. Others note that the general public is not privileged enough to access detailed discovery information to make mindful decisions on a case’s lifecycle.